Readers' comments

Completely ridiculous you could say the same thing about so many other things drinking, smoking, food porn, pot, fad diets, life extension through calorie restriction, religious fasting, cleansing, extreme bodybuilding etc..

These are the same tired and irrational arguments people used against gays.

It is one thing to try to force a lifestyle on everyone like gays try to do now, vs allowing the freedom of information and association.

Personally, I wouldn't argue that these sites should be banned. But the "ana" lifestyle still an unhealthy way of life which is pushed by people who have little to no understanding of human health-- or worse, a highly flawed understanding based off of pseudoscience and bullshit.

Starving yourself to the point of near-death is no where near the same as having a healthy homosexual relationship. Frankly, the comparison you made is bizarre and nonsensical. Stop insulting the intelligence of everyone who reads your post by trying to seriously push forth that comparison.

I agree its not healthy but again, many things people do are unhealthy or dangerous.
-
If you're going to have freedom of ideas, beliefs, information, and association, you can't pick and choose arbitrary what that applies to.
-
This is what irks me about ideologist, the hypocrisy and irrationality they champion freedom, but then go about restricting for everyone else.
-
and if the only thing that you got from my post was to get defensive about homosexuality then you've proved my point that most people (liberal) like your are totally hypocritical, closed minded and ignorant. no where did I say there was anything wrong with homosexuality, like it people have outlandish arbitrary arguments about whats good and bad and then try to ban it.

Try actually reading the post that you responded to. I stated that I do not support banning the ana websites.
.
My objection was not to your sentiment that they should not be banned; I agree with you, in fact, freedom of speech is freedom of speech, even if the speech is stupid. Rather, my objection was to your claim that an idiotic lifestyle choice, a lifestyle which is objectively and scientifically unhealthy, is equivalent to a homosexual union.
.
There is no scientific or objective basis for the comparison.

Anorexia is yet another manifestation of prevalent perversions of an increasingly decadent West. In parts of the world where hunger and lack of food are not a lifestyle choice at all, but an ever present pernicious reality , it is no joking matter , but a matter of life and death. The children in Ethiopia would be confounded if they knew that there are actually people ( existing ) who have food but will not eat it out of choice. This clearly is a psychiatric condition which should not be entertained in any way at all. Personally if children are brought up to be more rounded , and to appreciate the things they have, then they are more likely to look after them properly and with greater care. It is totally negligent and irresponsible not to look after our bodies properly. Our bodies are the most important and precious thing we have. Ever mature well balanced individual has a duty to look after his/her with all the care and attention it deserves - and that includes eating properly. Children brought to really value their bodies and who interact with mature people pointing them in the right direction will be less likely to adopt this narcissist and indulgent focusing on oneself ( and ), are less likely to be swayed or influenced by the maggots who have nothing better to do than to encourage young impressionable people to adopt what is a most unhealthy lifestyle.
People who have really suffered , and have actually starved ( not out of choice ) , would find this whole matter totally incomprehensible.

As someone still recovering from an eating disorder, even this article was hard to read. So I think removing "thinspirational" or pro-anorexia content is actually not only welcome but necessary. Studies about societies that did not have access to Westernized media / television ( islanders) show that they had a surprisingly low and quasi-inexistent number of eating disorders. However, after the introduction of such media, the number of cases blew up over the next decade. I think there are too many subtle cues to in our media, but also blatantly destructive content, which present unsustainable ideals of beauty in women and the more we fight against them the better.

Given the dangers eating disorders pose to someone's physical well-being, I wouldn't be surprised if these web platforms were removing the pro-ana content so they're not liable for anything if someone dies or is hospitalized. Even if that's not why they started doing it, its certainly a good reason to continue doing it.

This is a false equivalency. "Fat acceptance" websites do not encourage users to eat excessively, to gain weight, to deliberately make themselves unhealthy. They do not offer tips on how to sneak food or fool people -- friends, doctors, parents, spouses -- about how much they are eating. Essentially, in a world that increasingly posits overweight as a moral failing, "fat acceptance" sites serve to counter this ignorant and pernicious view and help readers believe that they are not "bad" because they are fat.

They're not teaching us how to be different.
They want so badly to conform theirselves that they put their life in danger, just to be like mass media want them to be.
Ana = Thin = Perfect.
An anorexic is not being herself, she's just striving to be someone she is not.

Beat agrees that banning isn't the answer - for us it's more about understanding what purpose pro anorexic sites have for people and then providing for that in alternative, helpful and safe ways.
What we don't have is sufficiently discriminating technology that would be able to ban pro ana without also inadvertently preventing access to positive recovery focused information.

I always find these 'if you ban them, people will just go elsewhere' arguments very weak. No-one expects that banning child pornography will reduce the number of paedophiles, either.
While child pornography is a much clearer-cut case than pro-anorexia sites, banning is simply one of many measures that eventually, potentially, help reduce the risk of children starving themselves to death.
Combined with other kinds of support, the banning makes sense. But to assume that one measure fits them all, doesn't.

Consider spamming these sites and forums with context sensitive advertising for support lines or groups aimed at showing people a helpful solution to their problem wherever they go to find ways to hide said problem.
Instead of outright banning the communities and pushing them underground, shift them to the solution.

Agreed. It also sends out a strong and powerful message that anorexia is unnaceptable behaviour and that you need to seek help, particularly if you are seeking out 'illegal' websites to help your mental disorder.

Proana and promia sites should not be illegal. Have you ever heard of telling people with depression that their feelings or they were "unacceptable?"
It is not about sending a message to people in that situation. That just makes people who don't understand the problem feel better. This is not a criminal behavior. It is also self-contained. It doesn't keep people on the street safe from harm. Comparing it to sex-offenses is an irresponsible misapplication.

Particularly since an eating disorder is part of a sliding scale of lifestyle choices, meaning, people have visions for their body and ways to go about it that include diet, exercise at various amounts. This is one extreme, but the goal itself is not negative.
It is destructive, and deeply psychological. But there are also many ways to harm a body. The stigma against this hurts people more.

On the contrary, stigma is a very important part of prevention. If the stigma of being a single mother still existed, there would be far less of it and far less anti social and criminal behaviour as a result.

In the same way there would be less anorexia if any 'pro' sites are shut down and means of communication halted and stigma reintroduced.

It is utilatirianism I know but look:
PRO (to society): Less anorexia, less single mothers
COST (to society): The smaller minority of single mums and anoerixa sufferers are stigmatised and suffer more.

Omicron, you need to either quit trolling (which the Economist and its readers do not really appreciate) or understand that correllation =/= causation. Lots of things were different decades ago, I doubt you could provide proof that it was the social stigma that CAUSED less single parent households. Although statistically coming from a single parent household is raises ones chances of doing drugs, crime, etc. it does by no means guarantee it. As the son of a single mother, I'm living proof. However, society stigmatizing single mothers would have almost certainly impacted my mother's life, as would being trapped in a loveless, possibly abusive relationship to avoid that stigma.

Personally, I think when you are discussing the benefit to "society" you really mean the benefit to YOU. You're not utilitarian, you're egoist. You want to shame anorexics into disappearing so they don't bother you. You don't want to be robbed, so you don't mind trapping a woman in an abusive relationship if that provides her child with two parents. Anorexics especially have no net-cost to society, it's a personal psychological problem and society wants to help them not because of the benefit to US, but the benefit to THEM.

Do you drink? Because alcoholism is a huge cost to society. Rather than AA or other programs, I just think all alcohol should be banned, and people who drink should be shamed and stigmatized. How does this sound to you, Omicron?

Firstly, I am not trolling, simply presenting a utilatarian and controversial view.

Secondly, I am not without compassion and I am all for helping those with mental health problems

I am however in favour of a presentation of normality from which deviation should be stigmatised eg a whole family unit, and not pursuing the sort of mental activities which lead to a person seeking a community on a pro ano website.

Alcoholism has a huge cost to society and I am glad you bring it up because in places where excessive drunkeness is stigmatised, there is a lot less of it, with people like the AA also being involved. I imagine something similar can happen with what I mentioned above. It is possible for society to leverage both stigma and compassion. The French for example consume more alcohol and get excessively drunk less than the British.

STigma can form part of a valid multi pronged social strategy.

PS Abusive relationships are only a small part of the reason for single motherhood. Stigma would be a big stick for proper use of contraception, in addition to properly targetted benefits that try as much as possible to help child and not mother.

You are neither. Utilitarianism depends on benefit to a greater number of people. You have ignored two people pointing out that anerexia is not harmful to society, it's harmful to the people who have it. Who are you helping? You already admitted that those stigmitized will be harmed more.
You are also presenting a common view, but a mistaken one. For example, stigmitization of STDs does not lead to less STDs, it leads to less honesty about it, and people refusing to get treatment or be honest with their partners. Numerous other examples can show the same pattern. Try a search about how stigmitization affects prevention, and also, stigmitization of mental illness.
Criminalizing self harm doesn't prevent it either. Examples, drug use, abortion(leading to attempts at underground or home alternatives), prohibition, sexuality...
Both of your suggestions lead to harmful results.

stigmatisation generally leads to less people taking up a particularly harmful behaviour or social problem. the benefit to society is all of the people that would have taken up that problem and didnt (probably subconciously) due to the stigma attached to it. For example, less people would choose to become single mothers.

Do you know what causes less single mothers? Stoning any woman who has a child out of wedlock or attempts to divorce. Does this make it a better solution? No. AND it doesn't stop the situations that lead to unintended pregnancies.
The point about eating disorders specifically, is negative attention exasperates the problem. More attention to weight, skinny bashing, etc is conciliate harm.

A percentage of single mothers are so by choice. This percentage would be more or less eliminated if stigma was attached. Therefore the children of those mothers benefit from societal stigma as they are brought up in wedlock (or other loving and committed partnership) or not at all. Its straightforward logic see? societal benefit.
Stigma works.
Compassion and mental health programs also are required and also work.

You have yet to give proof of this.
Also, single mothers who made a choice to be single mothers are probably more responsible than many couples. It is not like it is a terrible situation. It can be but it can also be good, whether someone decides they are ready and able to bring up a child without having to irresponsibly get hitched first, or if say the mother or father dies. Making something that is hard harder with stigmitization doesn't help. It withdrawals support, creates job descrimination, increased anxiety, housing descrimination.

Either way, this ignores the focus of eating disorders being particularly harmed by additional attention and pressure. Are you taking EDs of the table?

You take attention away from an anorexia sufferer by banning and otherwise restricting the pro ano websites they would otherwise visit and restricting the attention they receive to close family and friends.

Stigma, yes. Discrimination, no of course not. The purpose of stigma is to prevent new cases of the stigmatised object, not to fix existing ones. Fixes should also be implemented as a separate action.

And it isnt my burden of proof, it is a neutral subject for which we should both require proof after further logical thought processes are exhausted.

That's pretty naive to think that, one, those are the only influences that they would have and, two, that the attention of family and friends would solve something. A lot of the time a parental figure, or social dynamic contributes to the problem. Again, websites offer support, and people who have an ED will constantly think about it. When they see their legs when they sit down, when lunch time is mentioned, when there is a food ad on TV, when someone tell them they look good, or bad, or tired.
Stigmatization is an inherent part of discrimination. They are bad and different, so I should treat them badly and/or differently.
Proving a claim about a cause or numerical increase that YOU make is YOUR burden.

It doesnt look like we are going to agree but the discussion was worthwhile.

I suggested a solution, not a cause. A solution which happened to have been in place until relatively recently (in terms of decades). Any action, inaction or reversion to status quo to tackle an issue should need proof or at least no negative proof. The burden of proof does not lie with either of us.

Stigma is NOT discrimination. Social stigma is repeated acknowledgment that the course of action someone has embarked on is socially unnaceptable. In other words they have fewer friends and less invites to dinner parties as well as continual criticism of their choices by the people they know. They should NOT hwoever be discriminated against for eg employment.

And no, stigmatization is not discrimination. But they are inherently linked patterns of thought and action.
The stigma against promiscuity is used a reason to discriminate. Same with single mothers, political affiliations, appearance..

Even if your point was legitimate it's still unworkable. Smoking is thought to be socially unacceptable in many circles but if all your friends smoke then it's the norm. Unlike smoking you can't quit being a single parent so for a teenager whose friends'' are from single parent families, single parenthood becomes the norm. You can't stigmatise the norm.